Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Report stage; amendment to motion in amendment; substantive

Journals pp. 397-8

Debates pp. 4647-8

Background

During debate on a motion in amendment of Mr. Woolliams (Calgary North) at the report stage of Bill C-133, an Act to amend the Housing Act, Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) proposed an amendment. The object of his amendment was to eliminate the administrative charges obtained from CMHC; the motion of Mr. Woolliams would only reduce these charges. In making his proposal, Mr. Broadbent acknowledged that his amendment would have the identical effect of his own motion in amendment which had yet to be considered by the House. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) expressed reservations about the procedural acceptability of the proposed amendment in light of this admission and heard comments from Members before rendering his decision.

Issue

Can an amendment be moved that results in the duplication of another motion in amendment for which notice has already been given?

Decision

No. The amendment cannot be moved; it is substantive in nature and requires notice.

Reasons given by the Acting Speaker

The fact that Mr. Broadbent gave notice for his own motion in amendment indicates that it is substantive in nature; consequently, an amendment seeking to obtain an objective identical to that of another motion in amendment cannot be accepted. To allow it would be tantamount to attaching one motion to another.

Sources cited

Standing Order 75(5).

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 169, c. 202(1).

References

Debates, June 11, 1973, pp. 4643-7.